Option - blacklist - I don't want to be put in team with such and such...?

[Ergeo]

 

In the case of extreme exploiting of other players engagement in the battle - shouldn't there be an option

"exclude this player from maching it into my team"?

 

Some players just take a total extreme lauch at the whole gameplay - and bring with theirs' behaviour the rest of the team into a defeat

(e.g. I just had Myogi and Kongo huggin eachother at the brder and doing Nothing when others were dying - and they were, when it comes to tier and class, the backbone of the team, so it was definate that we we'll loose from the 5th minute).

 

And also  there is a lot of players who just wait at the back when their teamate will nib some HP from the enemy (and being left on their own die) to then engage 5-10 minutes later and exploit damaged by your dead allies ships to get some score.

 

===

 

There should be a choice of that kind. You should be allowed not to play with the players who sabotage the game at any tier (and it still happens in ranked battles - even at lvl 16 or 15th):

 

- it would largely improve the gameplay(as clearly and surely the reporting system doesn't work and is a) just a smokescreen for the fact that anyone can do anything b) it's for statistical reasons only so Wargaming can adjust some mechanism but not to penalise any players at all) - you could put aside for you players which sabotage your team battles

 

- it would allow you to match yourself with players with similar style of a gameplay - so, even if still randomly chosen, you could develop, shape and perfect with some circles a very specific tactics of your own;

 

- it would put on a side pisstakers, learners and sabotagers and leave them to themselves, which would:

 

 - probably discourage some from playing (which Wargaming obviously would like, just for the fact, of few more pennies not going into a pocket - even if pisstakers usally don;t invest in anything or not much. and engaged players are those obsessively throwing bunches on money on the game - and they get discouraged from the game with these kind of situations)

 

- it could pull up some pants of some of those players immediately or eventually - cause they would stop enjoying sabotaging straight in a face potentially victorius battles, or exploit others engagment and serious gameplay

 

- match the learners and worse off players and sabotagers with themselves, which in effect

 

- would make the gameplay for them much easier and enjoyable, they wouldn't be overwhelmed by much better players invading them in the battles on lower tiers, the newbies could still dominate from time to time (what a great feeling) by pasturing themselves on those sabotagers and pisstakers

 

- it would remove a need for ranked battles (or leave them just for a privvilege of climbing for stars and rewards), and would remove a dillema of opening ranked battles for other tiers (or wating for developments widening it for other tiers), as this proposed option would in fact bring some aspects of ranked battles

 

 

 

======

 

What do you think?

 

Obviously most likely noone from Wargaming responsible for development will read this idea, either it will never reach such person, and evn if, the're is even smaller likehood what it would be brought to any attention of those, even after reading it/hearing it.

 

[Admiral_noodle]

Nice idea but potentially a pain in the [edited]to recode MM to take a new variable into account. So value vs cost analysis... How often will a blacklisted player even get in your team? Is it worth the extra coding to stop it?

I do this as my job. Business says "I want this function" I explain ok but will take 1 year and $1m... They say "ok not worth it..."

 

And then what about you the player who blacklists everyone on a losing team. Bound to happen. A limit!? How many? You see it's never simple. 

[mikelight1805]

Its a nice idea, but the matchmaker struggles as it is to match a team. If it was even possible for the matchmaker to be able to calculate who out of 25000 players didn't want to to play with 24000 of the other players. Imagine the Que time, you could be waiting ten mins for a match. You mention ranked battles. surely if you don't like the team play in random, there is always PVE or ranked battles?

[Ergeo]

Sorry, but I don;t see matchmaker to struggle with anything beyond ranked battles. Anynone?

[Userext]

Sorry, but I don;t see matchmaker to struggle with anything beyond ranked battles. Anynone?

 

Well you obviously dont know how MM works if you are saying that.

[Dangerhamster]

It's a nice idea but I get the feeling it would quickly reach the point where people would be complaining they need more slots in their list after adding everybody they see play poorly in one battle. And of course it would open the door to all those who want to pick the maps they play on....

[Vulgarny]

I would pull on my black list all people bellow 55% win ratio. Nice way to boost my win ratio dont you think

 

[Userext]

I would pull on my black list all people bellow 55% win ratio. Nice way to boost my win ratio dont you think

 

boosts winrate but above %55 can and will steal your daily poor player meal 

[Reex]

Nice idea but potentially a pain in the [edited]to recode MM to take a new variable into account. So value vs cost analysis... How often will a blacklisted player even get in your team? Is it worth the extra coding to stop it?

 

I do this as my job. Business says "I want this function" I explain ok but will take 1 year and $1m... They say "ok not worth it..."

 

And then what about you the player who blacklists everyone on a losing team. Bound to happen. A limit!? How many? You see it's never simple. 

 

It is worth it. Matching players that do want to play together would improve the ability to make friends with each other in a e-sport way but would also in case of ranked battles make a even more competitive game since even though random it would still put together good teams as the players themselves have chosen each other in one way.

 

But in case of being matched with bad players, it happened very often for me in ranked when I was just climbing up too 17 and a few players that were very bad, didn't want to follow tactics and so on; was matched with me 9 times in a row until they had to go to bed or something, getting top xp,70-90k damage and so on, every round but always lost and really frustrated because my skills alone couldn't make me win at least. In ranked it is very often enough that one player goes wild and it's just like that a lost whatever the rest do.

[JapLance]

It would be a nice idea if this game had a massive player base like WoT with 200k players every day. But with the current numbers, I'm afraid it's not possible.

 

Believe or not, I had the same idiot in my team twice in just a couple of days, accusing me of the same nonsense (being a camper), and failed miserably in both when the team list with earned experience came up. Still better, this guy is in the forums (not English forums though). I'd gladly block this player if I had the chance.

 

 

[Sake78]

Here is the problem this idea will face: what if the guy is on 2 black lists, for you and for another player that is matched in an opposing team. Suddenly this ignored person is put in a waiting queue, as it cannot play in your match. Which will complicate things the less tiers or classes are up top, not to mention battle tiers and carrier mirroring. And all this is only for 2 players that have only one in their black lists. Imagine multiple permutations

 

I am sorry, but it does seem impossible to implement, if anything just for the only one argument: it will clutter the matchmaker with useless parameters, when it is already struggling as it is. It also goes completely against the Ranked system also, where high ranks have issues getting matches at all. An [edited] is not necessarily a bad player, so you could end up not being matched with a loud mouth that can actually sail a ship so you both will just sit and watch how you aren`t getting games for hours.

[Ergeo]

I don't really see the point of stressing on matchamker struggle, before even testing this solution.

 

I did mention that this should be considred (and implemented) beyond the ranked battles system (within which you actually really have to wait sometimes for quite a while) and until more people will start attending ranked battles, this solution can stay beyond it.

 

I - just to get what you mean by struggle - went quickly (to revise if I'm wrong with not getting you) into a battle (Vth tier it was in this case) - waiting time: 10 seconds.

 

What harm would that be for those using this option (by their choice) if they would wait, as a result not 10 seconds but 30?

 

I do understand doubts and concerns, but writing it off even before trying...? With such confidence in your judgements?...

 

Isn't it worth to put it at least for testing?...

 

===

 

Why to throw it away from discussion?

You can always have an option to have this active/inactive (depending on part of the day and resulting of it traffic in the game).

 

I don't really feel any REAL (harming me as a player - so noticable for the audience) struggle of the matchmaker in other cases then ranked battles (where it is obvious - cause not large numbers play there and rules are restrained to 2 tiers and specific numbers of classes in a battle - AND SOMEHOW IT GOT IMPLEMENTED, REGARDLESS  - so whole your argument goes into the bin straight away with that background).

 

What I meant about this solution is to implement it BEYOND (with omitting) ranked battles for now.

And also it could be left for now (if not in general) for all tiers below ranked battles tiers (so lets say below 6th tier - where there is plenty of players),

as I undrstand that it can cause some lag on highest tiers where still not too many climbed up.

.

[Userext]

 

 

Short explaining: Some tier 10 CVs now has to wait for 20 to 60 minutes to get in teh battles. Its all because the limited and mirrored MM. Your proposal system would make this for every player. Some players would be kicked from game because no one wants to be in the same team with them.

[Ergeo]

p.s.

 

I understand that this solution can be exploited (like any other) - and it has to be considered if and how this exploitation can be avoided,

but, to make it clear - I rather meant it to be used (and block accepted by the system) in cases of obvious and glaring actiing of a player against the team interest.

Not just because someone being a good or a bad player...

It would have to be considered then if it is possible to implement in the engine any mechanism which would be testing such an enquiry before it being accepted

(I'm sure that - for instance - whole or most of the team in a battle reporting specific player /and it occuring to be anything else than a bot/ and this being repeated 2 or 3 times in a spread of one week, would be a sufficient rsolution to that).

 

The real problem and fact from which this proposal is deriving is that in real terms the "reporting" system in this game has NO consequenses and it doesn't do ANYTHING - those reports (from my view on the sitation) no other effects and use than statistical to work on games' engine - and has NO effect on any individals abusing the game

Had ANY of you expirienced ANY effect of any report of misbehaviour or a bad gamplay by anyone???

Cause I think it's just a pisstake on all the players here and its' just a smokescreen, painkiller and "button" of distress  to make you fel than anyone is receiving your report, that anyone takes care of it and that it has ANY consequenses.

 

Cause I am sure that if that [reporting] system would have any practical use on addressing the abusers,

then none or most of the issues, well understood by you and bringing me to this post and proposal,

would be taking place.

 

At the moment reporting system is a pisstake and a laugh at the whole community - FULL STOP.

[Userext]

At the moment reporting system is a pisstake and a laugh at the whole community - FULL STOP.

 

http://forum.worldofwarships.eu/index.php?/topic/31559-culture-of-communication-thanks-and-complaints/

[Ergeo]

 

Short explaining: Some tier 10 CVs now has to wait for 20 to 60 minutes to get in teh battles. Its all because the limited and mirrored MM. Your proposal system would make this for every player. Some players would be kicked from game because no one wants to be in the same team with them.

 

You even don't read what I am writing - so sure you are of your superiority in throwing the post out of the window (commonly unfrotunately met attitude among beta testers - which often roam free on that and are not monitored in their behaviour at all - at least you do not throw heavy insults and offences which I met from others just for the fact of speaking at all):

 

I wrote (just above your answer):

 

And also it could be left for now (if not in general) for all tiers below ranked battles tiers (so lets say below 6th tier - where there is plenty of players),

as I undrstand that it can cause some lag on highest tiers where still not too many climbed up.

 

 

[Userext]

 

You even don't read what I am writing - so sure you are of your superiority in throwing the post out of the window (commonly unfrotunately met attitude among beta testers - which often roam free on that and are not monitored in their behaviour at all - at least you do not throw heavy insults and offences which I met from others just for the fact of speaking at all):

 

It doesnt matter if its in populated tier 10s. IT still would create 20min long waiting line. Clan mates can just block all others and play as a team for example.

[Sake78]

What harm would that be for those using this option (by their choice) if they would wait, as a result not 10 seconds but 30?

 

Case 1: Player Ergeo is pissed about player Userext using a CV and player Ergeo has an unexplicable aversion towards CV`s. Now, player Ergeo WILL add to ignore ANY CV he sees, based on the premises that the MM HAS to mirror CV`s, thus trying to artificially force a game without CV`s. Funny thing is the MM takes into account such situations and will disregard the mirror option if enough time was spent without a match, so player Ergeo just screwed his team over through the very system that is supposed to protect it. Congrats player Ergeo!

 

Case 2: Player Ergeo is matched into Team A and has player Userext on his ignore list. Player Sake78 gets matched into Team B and has player Userext on his ignore list - let`s say I just don`t like the color of his camo and neither does player Ergeo. Players Ergeo and Sake78 get matched chronologically ahead of player Userext. Suddenly, player Userext is ineligible to be matched in that "window" and has to wait in queue for another match. Player Userext might very well be a victim of 2 [edited], like Sake78 and Ergeo and not be a "toxic" player himself.

 

There - 2 cases of subjective use of such a "feature", with one that gives a very interesting option for abusing the system. And no, there aren`t guarantees that a player will add another based on actual toxic play and not on personal grudges. And if we look at the tanks game and how people abuse every mechanic and try to get people temp banned by mass reports, this system is far more dangerous and prone to abuse, which WILL happen.

[Userext]

 Userext might very well be a victim of 2 [edited], like Sake78 and Ergeo and not a "toxic" player.

 

 Good explaining 

[Sake78]

 

 Good explaining 

 

Edit for case 2: If players Sake78 and players Userext get matched ahead of player Ergeo and Sake78`s team is full, player Ergeo will be placed on waiting list. Funny turn of events.

[Ergeo]

Block Quote

 Clan mates can just block all others and play as a team for example.

 

How would that be ossible by solution which I proposed - it looks like your ading another fake layer to it.

Can you draw for me an idea how caln mates can blacklist everyone else? (when mechanism is designed that it has to be reasonable)

 

Or you just want to struk out this idea and you;re doing it at any price - giving whatver sci-fi scenario close to it to ridicule the suggestion?

 

 

Block Quote

 Now, player Ergeo WILL add to ignore ANY CV he sees,

 

 

Again no reading done and some sci-fi example given (without proper reading and consideration).

I wrote (CLEARLY - and keep repeating myself on that - as you try to ridicule it):

 

I rather meant it to be used (and block accepted by the system) in cases of obvious and glaring actiing of a player against the team interest.

Not just [...]  It would have to be considered then if it is possible to implement in the engine any mechanism which would be testing such an enquiry before it being accepted....

 

Block Quote

 Now, player Ergeo WILL add to ignore ANY CV he sees, based on the premises that the MM HAS to mirror CV`s, thus trying to artificially force a game without CV`s.

 

 

Another artifical ridiculment - trying to show off a "wisdom" and "smartness" of the author - not to look into any sense (and avoidance by design of such situations).

 

a) I wrote (above quoted) that such exlusion has to have some resonalble ground and would have to be accpted by the engine

 

b) Ergeo would have to exclude few thousand of CVs' to put your idea into effect

 

Block Quote

 Congrats player Ergeo!

 

 

Congrats of being out of touch with REALITY.

 

Block Quote

 ...let`s say I just don`t like the color of his camo and neither does player Ergeo.

 

 

I already explicitly few times pointed out that it (the exclusion) shluldn;t be availabe on "juts like that" basis. but you guys keep coming back onto that one time after another...

 

Block Quote

 Player Userext might very well be a victim of 2 assholes, like Sake78 and Ergeo and not be a "toxic" player himself.

 

 

That's right - that's why the system (engine) would have to test it (cause I don;t belive they would employ any team to do so - as they did not emply anyone to properly deal with apparently made for something reporting system /as it's not just about "language" but a gameplay/).

 

Block Quote

 There - 2 cases of subjective use of such a "feature",

 

 

These cases only show dirty mind of yours (and of many plyers probably) which probably have to be taken into accont with designing any game- not of those who want to just enjoy a good fair gameplay.

 

Block Quote

 temp banned by mass reports

 

 

Anyone got banned in WOT?

 

The problem is that Wargaming doesn't want to be btohered with abuse of the players and engage any reasonable resources into that. It just wants to make money (so in its' perception even disrupting joyfull life of toxic players is on its' way of growing business). Lets face it.

 

 

Block Quote

 Edit for case 2: If players Sake78 and players Userext get matched ahead of player Ergeo and Sake78`s team is full, player Ergeo will be placed on waiting list. Funny turn of events

 

 

No problem. I am ok with waiting few more seconds to lower my probablilty of playing with players who will be sabotaging a good gameplay (or absolutely dislikking my style)

 

 

Userext, on 23 September 2015 - 08:54 PM, said:

 

 IT still would create 20min long waiting line.

 

Again putting some fake statment in place just to rationalise the decline.

 

Did you have 20 minutes of waiting time at any time?

Cause for me it never went (even in ranked battles) above 3 minutes - and this were isloted (2-3) cases. Another 10 above 1 minute, and all the rest below.

(Considering that ranked battles system is Much bigger constrain then that one proposed by me).

So where did you get "20 mins" from?

Can we hold on to the fact in this discussion not to total fiction?...

 

Someone (not just "betatesters" and Wargaming employees) with any pistive voice/view on implemanting ANY kind of penalisation for trolls and saboteurs in WOWs?

(other than "reporting" which causes and brings nothing - at the moment - other then fake feeling of relief that pupil told a teacher about bad behaviour of other pupil)

 

[G01ngToxicCommand0]

Yes there is far too many bad players that should not be playing PvE with the lack of skills they possess. It would be better for the community if it was divided in below and above 50% WR so that players will be on and meet teams of near equal skill. I am so tired of bad losing streak due to players either being too stupid or inept to a degree where they cause the battle to lose while the matchmaker favour the enemy team with higher tier ships or a setup better suited to domination mode almost every single battle.

 

If WG wants to lose customers this is the way to do it by allowing bad players to mingle with those who are better; bad players should be playing PvE or against other bad players only or the game need to be dumbed down so much that even those [edited] can succeed in it.

[Sake78]

Again no reading done and some sci-fi example given (without proper reading and consideration).

I wrote (CLEARLY - and keep repeating myself on that - as you try to ridicule it):

 

I rather meant it to be used (and block accepted by the system) in cases of obvious and glaring actiing of a player against the team interest.

Not just [...]  It would have to be considered then if it is possible to implement in the engine any mechanism which would be testing such an enquiry before it being accepted....

 

That means diddly squat. It will look like the right click on a player`s name, just a different menu, with various reasons. Nothing is stopping people to use it, regardless of the actual player doing or not doing what the assholes are reporting him for. 

 

It is also a redundant system, as WG has automated systems in place AND report functions. They might not be as fast as you or others want them, or not handing the heavy punishment that you or others want them to, but they exist nonetheless. You will only give power to the players and that will only lead to abuse. It will not achieve anything else past what the systems that are in place already would, other than a questionable time gain versus a lot of issues about unfair reports.

 

BTW, defining "cases of obvious and glaring actiing of a player against the team interest" is an interesting argument and is entirely subjective. You see, to a 30% WR fellow, or a lemon, EVERYBODY is against the team and using bad tactics, especially to those tactical geniuses that manage to die within the first 2 minutes of the game and ALWAYS blame their immediate proximity ship, followed by their entire team precisely 3 seconds later. You see.. to a noob everybody is in the wrong and that is a very solid reason not to give voting powers "to the people", which are mostly perfect average vengeful individuals that can`t do wrong and, therefore, it is someone else`s fault.

[Ergeo]

 It will look like the right click on a player`s name, just a different menu, with various reasons. Nothing is stopping people to use it, regardless of the actual player doing or not doing what the assholes are reporting him for. 

 

 

 

You see - your determination to struck any discussion on it out and to know Everything is just mindboggling (and I think it's called ignorance)..

 

How do you know what it would look like already? And on what mechanism it would be based? There are no possibilites in this world for new solutions

and it's (the world) restrained to specific numbers opf implementations within only some pallet?....

 

 

 It is also a redundant system, as WG has automated systems in place AND report functions.

 

 

Which don't work. I will rather call them REDUNDAT - cause they are, and they don;t defend themself for any client in one bit.

The problem here is an utter laugh and disregard of Wargaming for their clients (whom players are) - and you see it on every step (and your read it and hear it

repeatatively expressed). But probably guys like you ([...] know it what role are you present here on those forums - but form me your way of expressing thins feel like you're from a Vth column "smash the clients).

And I have a feeling that Wargming is gradually loosing more and more players - even if they don't feel it clearly or see it yet (quite likely those who spend more money).

The thing is that it desn't bother them as long as they have steady stream of money coming into their accounts (they have that much that they don't see the problem or whether it affects them - and as long as they don't feel it then there is no problem for them, so from their point of view - clients' problem is not a problem, only if it largely affect their business, not when it stoppes it from growing, cause, from their point of view thier so big, that they don;t see anything under their belly).

 

  that is a very solid reason not to give voting powers "to the people",

 

 

That's just your political perception leaking out into the game I see (or Wargamings' perspective? :-)) with their great king Lukaszenko on the throne... ? :-)) )

You see you might be right that voices of indviduals express often just their emotions and personal wantings, but usually if they line up and are verified by a wider circle of players from the same battle, then it means they most likely they are right, or at least clearly the addressed player doesn't stick at all into a gameplay or a style represented by the whole rest and therefore is unwanted by them and felt being a burden and one who drags team down - and that becomes objective by then.

 

===

 

You see - you keep pressing unexisting and not defending itself arguments ("20 minutes wait", "this will definately work this way", "people shouldn't have a right to vote" - the existence of this game grew out of the right to vote Mr - do you know that the first PC was designed already in the 60s' by a Pole, but he wanted it to be produced in Poland not in the West - and struggle with the aparatus made him to turn himself into swineherd out his own choice, by the 70s, cause he decided that he can get on better with pigs then with people; probably those were the same like you "oh, this won't work" "oh it's too good" "oh, why do we need that" "oh, we already have better things") just to finalise any discussion on the topic in the bin.

It just keeps me wonder - for benefit of whom are you so on it? For benefit of whom are you doing that?

 

[Ergeo]

Can we just start talking about real solutions and real issues, not the imaginary ones and the ones which don't work (though "are in place)?